The War Against Parents: The UNCRC

Parental rights are slipping away from parents at an imperceptible rate and now falling into the hands of the government. The government is using the rights of the parent to empower children to make decisions for themselves. You heard me correctly – the government is stripping away your rights as parents and handing your rights over to your children. Children are encouraged to withhold vital information from their parents, and they have the law to back them up. Parents of Minnesota, did you know that a doctor can perform any medical procedure on your child without your authorization, in a non-life threatening situation?

“Any minor may give effective consent for medical, mental and other health services to determine the presence of or treat pregnancy and conditions associated therewith, venereal disease, alcohol and other drug abuse, and the consent of no other person is required.”

Unfortunately, this law is not exclusive to the state of Minnesota. In the state of Arizona, minors have the ability to explicitly consent to contraceptive services and STD/HIV screening services. With regards to alcohol and/or drug abuse treatment, the minor must only be 12 years of age to explicitly consent. Again, this is not exclusive to the state of Arizona, this is nationwide. According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization working to advance sexual and reproductive health throughout the world, many states have implemented similar laws:

26 states and the District of Columbia allow all minors (12 and older) to consent to contraceptive services. 20 states allow only certain categories of minors to consent to contraceptive services . . . All states and the District of Columbia allow all minors to consent to STI (sexually transmitted infection) services. 18 of these states allow, but do not require, a physician to inform a minor’s parents that he or she is seeking or receiving STI services when the doctor deems it in the minor’s best interests . . . 2 states and the District of Columbia explicitly allow all minors to consent to abortion services. 36 states that require parental involvement have an alternative process for minors seeking an abortion. 36 states include a judicial bypass procedure, which allows a minor to obtain approval from a court. 4 states require judges to use specific criteria, such as a minor’s intelligence or emotional stability, when deciding whether to waive a parental involvement requirement. 12 states require judges to use the “clear and convincing evidence” standard that the minor is mature and the abortion is in her best interest when deciding whether to waive parental involvement requirement.

You see, parents are becoming irrelevant when it comes to important decisions involving their children. As stated above, some states require a judge to render a decision which should be explicitly made by the child’s parent. So where does it end? Why are children being encouraged by our government officials to make decisions for themselves? It is not just legislators; doctors have overstepped their bounds, as well.

There have been several cases in which health care providers have taken it upon themselves to disregard parents’ wishes and encroach on their decision-making rights. Parents Erin and Ken Stieler have firsthand experience in this area. The Stielers’ 10-year-old son Jacob was diagnosed with Ewing Sarcoma, a rare bone cancer. Jacob was taken to Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Great Rapids, Michigan to undergo chemotherapy. The treatment was very difficult for Jacob and it took a huge toll on him, both physically and mentally; at one point, he told his parents he wanted to die. Fortunately, after three months of treatment, the PET scans confirmed the cancer was completely gone. Still, the doctors advised Jacob to undergo more chemotherapy. After researching the side effects of the chemotherapy Jacob’s doctors wanted him to continue, Jacob’s parents concluded that “the risk of the drugs was far greater than the risk of recurrent cancer, since Jacob had a clean PET scan.”

Dissatisfied with the Stieler’s decision, the hospital contacted Child Protective Services and accused Jacob’s parents of medical neglect. The Stielers hired a lawyer to fight the charges brought upon by the State of Michigan. This case began to catch the attention of individuals who supported the Stieler’s decision and a legal team presented the judge with a petition to dismiss the case. After reviewing the petition, the judge did just that.

Although this case had a happy ending, this goes to show that states are trampling on parental rights. In this case, the state had the audacity to invalidate the Stieler’s decision concerning their son’s unnecessary chemotherapy treatment. Parental rights within the United States are already hanging by a thread. I wish I could tell you the madness ends there, but it does not. There is more.

The UNCRC is an international treaty, short for United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States has not yet adopted this treaty; Somalia is the only other country who has not done so. Even left-wing MSNBC recognizes this treaty has a better chance of passing under the Obama administration “than at any point in the past.” The treaty sounds completely harmless, but this is not the case at all; quite the contrary, actually. This international law contains 54 articles. I will address a few (the 54 articles can be read in its entirety here).

Article 4 of the UNCRC states: “You have the right to life. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthy.”

According to the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, we have a right to privacy. Does this mean a government bureaucrat will treat each parent as an abuser and enter our homes once a year, once a month, or even once a week to “ensure that children survive and develop healthy?” Well, don’t rule it out; Article 6 of the Constitution states,

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

This international treaty would be an adjunct to the Constitution. In other words, this treaty will also be the supreme law of the land. Let us take a look a look at another article in this treaty; Article 9 of the UNCRC states:

“You should not be separated from your parents unless it is for your own good . . .”

This statement is quite vague. One thing is for certain, though; a government bureaucrat will be responsible for telling you what they think is best for your child, and you will forced to comply. If not, your child will be removed from your custody.

Article 12 of the UNCRC states:

“You have the right to say what you think should happen when adults are making decisions that affect you, and to have your opinions taken into account.”

As an Elementary Education major with years of experience working with young children, I can personally say that children have no problem telling adults how they feel. Many parents do take their children’s feelings into account and genuinely hear them out, but regardless of what the child thinks or feels, it is the parent’s responsibility to make the final decision. That is why children are considered minors until the age of 18, and in some cases, 21. If a child is not satisfied with the parent’s decision (which is pretty common among children and teenagers), if would not be too far-fetched to assume that the child can contact a government bureaucrat and say something like, “my mommy and daddy won’t let me to spend the night at Johnny’s house this weekend.” A government bureaucrat will then enter the home and determine if staying at Johnny’s house is in the child’s best interest. The bureaucrat will most likely side with the child and give the parents one of two options: let the child spend the night at Johnny’s house or have the child removed from the parent’s custody. Is that scenario so hard to believe? I think not.

Article 13 of the UNCRC states,

“You have the right to get, and to share, information as long as the information is not damaging to yourself or others.”

The first question to ask is, what does our government consider damaging and inappropriate? Well, we have a government that encourages young children to engage in sexual activity and withhold information from parents; information that prevents parents from protecting their children from decision that can and will affect them for the rest of their lives. There are also scholars working hard to normalize and redefine pedophilia as “intergenerational sexual intimacy?” Judith Levine, an academic and author of the book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex stated this:

“. . .there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and “we do have to protect children from real dangers . . . but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”

These are prime examples of why you cannot trust others to tell you what is best for your child.

As of 2008, 193 countries have ratified UNCRC, composed by 18 “international experts.” If the UNCRC is so grand, then why is homeschooling illegal in several European countries? If the UNCRC really cares about the rights of the child, then why are Sweden and Switzerland teaching children as young as 4, sex education? One of the 18 UNCRC composers is from Uganda, where honor killings have not been made illegal. As a result, young women are killed frequently.

Parental rights within this country are already dwindling, and the UNCRC will, without a doubt, prevent parents from having much say in their child’s upbringing. Each parent has a different method of child-rearing. Some parents circumcise their sons and some do not agree with this; some parents home-school their children, while some prefer to put their children in the public school system; some parents give their children chores, and some do not; some parents spank their children, while some do not agree with this method of discipline. You may not agree with the Stieler’s decision to discontinue the treatment for their son, but regardless with how you feel about some of the issues I have listed, parents make decisions for their children because they know what is best for them. Not every parent’s decision will be the right one, but that is all part of being a parent. Parents who have their child’s best interest at heart should not be treated as abusers, as this treaty suggests.

There is a way to fight this treaty, and I encourage each and every parent to take action immediately! Sign the petition that will protect parental rights by embedding them into the Constitution. This is known as the Parental Rights Amendment, a proposed modification to the Constitution.

SECTION 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2: Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Parents nationwide are being punished for doing what they think is in the best interest of their child, and you could be next. Fight for your right as a parent. Children are in danger, and it is up to parents to ensure their child’s safety. Contact your senator and representative today. Tell our government officials that we mean business.

11 Comments

Judging by many of the comments on here I think that the UNCRC should be ratified as soon as possible.

Many times in both the article and the comments people have talked about the rights of parents as if they think they have a right to do anything to their children.

The child is the person who is affected by decisions made about him and this means that, as long as the child is old enough to understand the nature of the matter for which a decision needs to be made, the child and the child alone has the right to make these decisions.

Oh and in the case of children who have not reached this level of understanding yet, such as babies, the parents do not have a right to make any decision they want in regards to that child they have a duty to do what is considered objectively to be in his best interests.

As long as there are people out there who think that they have a right to control someone else and make decisions for someone else we will need laws that expressly prevent them from doing so. and the UNCRC does that for children.

You say “As long as there are people out there who think that they have a right to control someone else and make decisions for someone else we will need laws that expressly prevent them from doing so. and the UNCRC does that for children.”

UNCRC says that the government should have that role to control someone else and make decisions for someone else. We do indeed need laws that prevent them from doing so, it’s called the Parental Rights Amendment. Please sign the petition right away.

Thanks for writing this piece, the UNCRC needs to be exposed for what it really it. A useless organization of well intentioned, otherwise good people on a mission to redesign Nature. Children are not autonomous beings.

I do take exception however of your review of Judith Levine. She is a courageous writer to go against widely held erronous views on sexuality of children. She is not an apologist for the “Pedophile Movement”, quite the opposite in fact. Her well researched book asks some very uncomfortable questions that the Right Wing Moralizers don’t even want to think about, never mind debate.

In a climate of Moral Panic that exists, people need a “Devil” to focus on and the Pedophile is an easy target. The Witch Hunters of Salem were otherwise good people who’s belief in Satan was every bit as strong as their belief in God. Their beliefs allowed them to commit the most heinous crimes, but at least, they were God Fearing People. The same is happening today.

One of the points of Levines book was there there is a void between the age of Puberty and the age of Consent. It’s like giving a child a Ferrari at age 12 but telling them they cant drive it until the are 16 or 18 in some areas. The laws don’t address this, quite the opposite.

We are seeing a situation in the USA which Levine noted, where children who have not reached puberty and have no concept or understanding of Sex or Sexuality are being punished for Sexual Crimes, that they are not even capable of understanding. 5 year old children are being placed on Sex Offenders Registers for Sexually Oriented “Crimes”.

The Witch Hunters are projecting their own deviant Pedophilic Lens on behaviors of children which in most cases are simple curiousity rather than sexual behavior. To say that children are being sexualized such as Childrens Beauty Pageants is deviant, how can anyone look at a child and find them sexy or sexual? this is not normal behavior. We are looking at the world through a pedophilic lens and worry about what pedophiles may think, who cares?. A debate about a clothing store selling clothing that some people deem will Sexualize children is ridiculous. A normal person doesn’t look at a child and see a sexual person, they see a child. If you believe that children are capable of being sexualized, you should run as fast as possible to see a psychiatrist.

The hype and hysterial of this Moral Panic is damaging to children and takes us away from very real issues such as child poverty, abuse and neglect. While we’re being distracted by the Boogie Man, we are not looking at the children in real danger. Most adults are afraid of children these days, in fear of being falsely accused of being a pedophile so we ignore children.

The agenda of the UNCRC allows governments carte blanch to do whatever they feel is best interests, problem is nobody ever measures best interests, if they did they would remove Social Workers and Psychologists from Child Protection. Read MIT’s Joseph Doyle’s Study of Foster “Care” to see what a disater that is.

The German Government produced a pamphlet that advocated parents having sex with their own children. In Belgium, Infants are not considered Human Beings under the age of 1 and can be killed WITHOUT the permission of their parents. It has been deemed such a success that they plan extending it to all children. Euthanasia for adults has been legal for some time. I can just imagine a troubled child calling the Suicide Hotline and the Govt sending a van around to assist. No Parents approval needed. Which is indeed the problem, the UN see parents as superfluous.

With the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities, a child can consent to Electroshock Therapy, Psychotherapy (lobotomy) and several other proceedures with parental permission. Australia already have a proposed Mental Health Bill which allows these “Rights” for Children.

When you consider that the UN have failed to prevent millions being slaughtered around the world, Syria, Libya, Rwanda, Sudan and many many other disasters, why should we give these people the power to make laws for children?. In Iran they hang children or stone them to death, even the USA puts adults to death who committed crimes as children, where the UN?. The best they can do in most cases is “utter a strong condemnation” which of course can be vetoed by many countries. Scrap the entire UN, they no loger serve a useful purpose, never did.

I don’t care what the state thinks is best for my child (grandchildren) I have more intelligence and morals in my little finger than all the politicians in Washington. No one needs to raise my family but ME, and my daughter needs to raise her children! They are in unsafe, wealthy environments where their “best interest” can never be met because what they need is the daily love from their mommy and their nanna. They are being deprived of the love from those who cared for them the most because they have been stolen through corrupt family court judges in two states. I have documents, I have laws, I have case law, I have precedence and I have testimony, BUT NO ONE IS LISTENING! Thanks for letting me speak. I am fighting with hundreds, soon to be thousands or even millions of women to GET OUR CHILDREN BACK FROM OUR ABUSERS OR THE SOCIAL SERVICES SYSTEM. All countries are experiencing this travesty of justice… why? here is my blog, it is public and WE ARE NOT AFRAID ANYMORE. When you take what we love the most, what do we have to fear? love to all…

@ Jared. Nobody is advocating protecting child abusers and we already have laws that protect children from abuse. The article is talking about parents God given/God mandated rights/responsibilties to rear their children as they deem appropraite without governemnt interference. This is far from protecting abusers, who should be prosecuted. That being said, Christian manuals that call for parents to beat their children within an inch of thier lives or OUTRIGHT KILL THEM!? Name one?

There is such a thing as parents not knowing what’s best for their child and the state has an interest in preserving children’s well being as much as they’d have reason to want to preserve the well being of the parents in other situations. If you try to give too much power to parents, we have examples of abuse ranging from supposed Christian discipline manuals causing parents to beat children within an inch or their lives or outright kill them.

There isn’t a manual for parenting, I realize this, and I’m not even a parent myself, but common sense does not always prevail in terms of reasonable parenting. If there are not some limits placed on parents, based on reasoned consideration of various circumstances, such as religious freedom and other important constitutional rights, then we risk too much for children, who are the future of society. If the parent’s supposed treating of their children in their best interest involves explicit or implicit abuse, then we should not allow it to continue on the basis of privacy, since even that is not an absolute right, as there are extenuating circumstances that can necessitate its violation.

Atarah, mold the children’s minds and you’ve molded the future. I worked as a nurse in a N.Y. family planning clinic back in the early 80’s. Back then, they would counsel , examine and give birth control to teenage girls. Referrals were given to any girl who wanted to have an abortion. No parental consent was needed. The girls were always asked if we could disclose who was calling in case we had to inform them of an abnormal pap result. Most would say to pretend it was a friend from school calling. I was much younger then and had not had children yet. It seemed reasonable. But in a hospital setting, I couldn’t give a Tylenol without parental consent. This was a very informative article with a call to action. Good for you! That section 2 of the Parental Rights Amendment looks like it could have loopholes? Too bad our already existing documents don’t seem to be enough for those with an agenda.

This is absolutely spot-on. All too many people fall for anything that’s named or marketed to sound innocuous or even beneficial, no matter how harmful the item (such as the UNCRC) actually is. According to the Lancet (UK medical journal), ratifying the UNCRC has had little to no effect on the health of children in countries who have adopted it. Nor has it stopped human trafficking or the practice of conscripting children into combat in third-world countries. The UNCRC would, if ratified by the US, deny parents the right to determine whether pedophiles, gangs, cults, or anyone else has access to their children. Does that sound like a “right” children need to have? Supporters of the CRC have expressed dismay and embarrassment that the US is nearly the only country NOT to have ratified this horrible thing. Do we really want to put all power in the hands of people who are that eager to bow to peer pressure? If “Everybody else is doing it” isn’t okay for our thirteen-year-old daughters, why on earth would it be valid reasoning for national and international policy-making?